On 11/13/2010 12:56 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > On 2010-11-12, at 16:26, Bernd Schubert wrote: >> The real issue we want to debug with the patch below actually came >> up while stress testing Lustre using the RHEL5.5 kernel (so >> 2.6.32'ish ext4), but a more verbose error function should not hurt >> for vanilla ext4 either. >> >> make ext4_valid_block_bitmap() more verbose >> >> While running our stress test suite, ext4_valid_block_bitmap() >> frequently complains about an invalid block bitmap. However, e2fsck >> does not find anything. So in oder to be able to better debug this >> issue, make the function more verbose and let it complain about the >> two possible invalid bitmaps. > > Bernd, thanks for sending this in. I like the idea of making these > messages more verbose, since they should rarely be hit and when they > are it would be good to know why these checks failed. Andreas, thanks for your helpful review, I will send an updated patch on Wednesday. >> + if (!valid) + ext4_error(sb, "Invalid block bitmap - block_group >> = %d", + block_group); > > It would probably be worthwhile to also print the block number of the > bitmap itself. I guess you mean bitmap_blk here? But that changes for every of the possible checks, so I already printed it above. Is it worth to print it again? And what if more than one problem is found, might become a bit confusing then? Thanks, Bernd
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
